Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the returned fields (vetting tier, publisher KYA level, declared permissions, rating aggregate) and the provenance rule that ratings come only from KYA-verified agents.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then filter semantics, then an example call. Efficient overall, though the trailing example-call sentence is a slightly awkward artifact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated for correctness; the description still helpfully previews them. Safety is covered by annotations and filter semantics by the description. Missing only pagination/limit behavior and sibling disambiguation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so: it explains the 'type' enum values (app or skill) and defines 'query' as plain text matched against names and summaries. Only the 200-character cap from the schema is left unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List published apps and skills in the Rightshold Store') and enumerates the returned fields. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling search_marketplace, so an agent must still infer which listing surface to use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'Filter with type (app or skill) and a plain-text query' tells how to narrow results, and 'Call with {"type": "skill"}' gives a concrete example. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_marketplace or check_listing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.